Page 150 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Cooperation Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 150
sions, objectives, norms and resources (Salas, Rosen, Shawn Burke, &
Goodwin, 2009). Norms are embedded in team mental models.
Transactive memory refers to knowledge about who knows what
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006); this means that each member learns what the
other team members know in detail. As a result, members direct new in-
formation to the corresponding member and also seek necessary informa-
tion in that way.
For ESL teams team mental models refer to the shared view of how
they see the problem of ESL (and the specific student), their planned strat-
egy of how to provide support (which resources to use and how) and their
working relationship. For example, a teacher’s mental model may be that
they only provide information on the student’s classroom behaviour if they
are prompted – if this is not aligned with another’s mental model either
the teacher’s or the other’s mental model needs to be modified. Transactive
memory means that e.g. other members know which team member pos-
sesses legal or administration knowledge; or that a teacher knows that the
counsellor provides information on second-chance education programmes
and is able to ask for this information or direct a student to the counsellor
for such information. Convergence of team mental models can be achieved
through training (Mohammed et al., 2010) and transactive memory by
shared experience and face-to-face interaction (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
Team cohesion
Team cohesion has been the most widely studied when it comes to team
interpersonal, motivational and affective emergent states. Cohesion (co-
hesiveness) is defined as ‘the resultant of all forces acting on the members
to remain in the group’ (Festinger, 1950, p. 274). Cohesion has three facets:
member attraction (i.e. member’s tendency to stick together – interper-
sonal cohesiveness), task commitment (i.e. members’ commitment to the
team’s task – task cohesiveness) and group pride. Several meta-analyses of
empirical studies (e.g. Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon 2003; Castaño,
Watts, & Teklab, 2013; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995/2012) have found
support for a positive relationship between each component of team cohe-
sion and team performance. The relationship is stronger if a task requires
greater interdependence (Gully et al., 1995/2012). Members’ personality
(extraversion, emotional stability), clear goals and norms seem to help de-
velop team cohesion; however, the research evidence is scarce (Kozlowski
& Ilgen, 2006).
150
Goodwin, 2009). Norms are embedded in team mental models.
Transactive memory refers to knowledge about who knows what
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006); this means that each member learns what the
other team members know in detail. As a result, members direct new in-
formation to the corresponding member and also seek necessary informa-
tion in that way.
For ESL teams team mental models refer to the shared view of how
they see the problem of ESL (and the specific student), their planned strat-
egy of how to provide support (which resources to use and how) and their
working relationship. For example, a teacher’s mental model may be that
they only provide information on the student’s classroom behaviour if they
are prompted – if this is not aligned with another’s mental model either
the teacher’s or the other’s mental model needs to be modified. Transactive
memory means that e.g. other members know which team member pos-
sesses legal or administration knowledge; or that a teacher knows that the
counsellor provides information on second-chance education programmes
and is able to ask for this information or direct a student to the counsellor
for such information. Convergence of team mental models can be achieved
through training (Mohammed et al., 2010) and transactive memory by
shared experience and face-to-face interaction (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
Team cohesion
Team cohesion has been the most widely studied when it comes to team
interpersonal, motivational and affective emergent states. Cohesion (co-
hesiveness) is defined as ‘the resultant of all forces acting on the members
to remain in the group’ (Festinger, 1950, p. 274). Cohesion has three facets:
member attraction (i.e. member’s tendency to stick together – interper-
sonal cohesiveness), task commitment (i.e. members’ commitment to the
team’s task – task cohesiveness) and group pride. Several meta-analyses of
empirical studies (e.g. Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon 2003; Castaño,
Watts, & Teklab, 2013; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995/2012) have found
support for a positive relationship between each component of team cohe-
sion and team performance. The relationship is stronger if a task requires
greater interdependence (Gully et al., 1995/2012). Members’ personality
(extraversion, emotional stability), clear goals and norms seem to help de-
velop team cohesion; however, the research evidence is scarce (Kozlowski
& Ilgen, 2006).
150
